[...] Their [proponents of nuclear power] first piece of disinformation is to confuse the effects of external and internal radiation. The former is what populations were exposed to when atomic bombs were detonated over Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945.

Internal radiation, by contrast, emanates from radioactive elements that enter the body by inhalation, ingestion, or skin absorption. Hazardous radioactive elements being released in the sea and air around Fukushima accumulate at each step of various food chains (for example, into algae, crustaceans, small fish, bigger fish, then humans; or soil, grass, cow’s meat and milk, then humans). Entering the body, these elements – called internal emitters – migrate to specific organs such as the thyroid, liver, bone, and brain, continuously irradiating small volumes of cells with high doses of alpha, beta and/or gamma radiation, and over many years often induce cancer.

Further, many remain radioactive in the environment for long periods, posing danger for future generations.

The grave effects of internal emitters are of the most profound concern at Fukushima – as indeed they continue to be at Chernobyl. It is erroneous and misleading to use the term ”acceptable levels of external radiation” in assessing internal radiation doses. To do so is to propagate inaccuracies and to mislead the public worldwide and journalists who are seeking the truth about radiation’s hazards. [...]

the wage bills of this nuclear industry has to be the biggest in the world..
which clearly include bribes kick backs retainer consultancy fees etc.
on bbc radio just had a very eminent scientist say well the problem with chernobyl was very complicated but we believe around 4000 deaths can be directly attributed to the accident.
these people are money grasping psychopaths.

UC Berkeley scientists are reporting as “effective” dose, which takes internal exposure into account. That is apparently the gold standard in the scientific literature. I haven’t found any hard data on the risks of “internal emitters” with regard to Fukushima. Admittedly, I haven’t looked very hard, but it seems as if there were hard data, Dr. Caldicott would be making reference to them. Has anyone else found any such data?

The EPA, FDA, DOE, ICRP, radiologists etc etc all have a limit. They’re all set to a morbidly high threshold of fatal cancer, as if all other well-documented ailments don’t count? It depends on whose limits and equivocations you choose. Personally, I’d like as close to zero as possible. I’d prefer my CEDE from ingested radionuclide contaminants not be compared to DDE like airline flights and bananas or suntans. We’re already at epidemic rates from other sources without Fuku. It’s prudent to say a lot of unsafe safety announcements were very premature. The latency period is 2-60 years after all and the situ is ongoing. Chernobyl is still experiencing their latency period – so are we here in the US. Here’s Chris Busby from ECRR to explain further:
“I attach my “don’t panic” paper. However, since then I have re-thought this advice as the thing is still fissioning and releasing 10 to the fourteen becquerels a day. This will mean that Sr-90 [strontium 90] and Uranium and particulates will be building up in the USA and Europe. I will assess this later but for now I think it prudent to stop drinking milk. I also attach the particulates note.”http://www.scribd.com/doc/53738157/Busby-Dont-Panic

We sadly received news last week that our friend who is married to a Japanese National, lost his baby to miscarriage. His wife had returned to Japan prior to 311 and lived with her family within the fallout zone as the baby developed.

Among our circle of friends it is believed that the fallout bio-accumulating within the food chain as well as contaminated drinking water contributed to the death of the child.
We have no autopsy or radiological data to confirm this belief.

I support Dr. Helen Caldicotts position on internal emitters as quoted above.

Internal Emitters/Ingestion has been the central focus of my concerns from day one of 311 and continues to be so.

Comparative risk analysis used by the nuclear industry to justify its existence is based on the presumption of the existence of choice.

What choice did my friends child have as radioactive particles accumulated in it’s tiny body?

LIVE FEEDS

Receive Occasional Enenews Newsletters

sending...

Name

E-mail

SUPPORT ENENews

ENENews receives no funding from anyone or anything, except 1) People who donate via the button below, and 2) Google, who pays for the two ad spots. Thanks to all who have donated or are planning on doing so, it's nice to know people appreciate your work.